SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4785

PATNA HIGH COURT
SANDEEP KUMAR, J
Lalan Muni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2672 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Heera Jha, Mr. Vivekanand Singh
For the Respondents: Mrs. Usha Kumari

Anticipatory bail is maintainable when no substantive offence under SC/ST provisions exists.

Headnote:This appeal relates to the rejection of anticipatory bail under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 354B, 504, 506/34 IPC and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) SC/ST Act. The appellants contend false implication and lack of evidence for SC/ST allegations. The court finds no offence committed under SC/ST provisions, allowing the bail application. The order of the lower court dated 12.06.2025 is set aside.

Table of Content
1. details of the accused and allegations. (Para 3)
2. arguments regarding false implication. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's observation on the absence of sc/st basis. (Para 6)
4. court's ruling on maintainability of bail. (Para 7)
5. summary of the court's final decision on bail. (Para 8 , 9)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

4 23-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Spl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated

12.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)Act, Khagaria passed in ABA No. 45 of 2024 arising out of Mahesh Khunt P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 325, 354B, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act , by which the prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail was rejected.

3. As per the prosecution case, the appellants are accused of assaulting the victim and abusing by taking his caste name.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case and no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out in this case and therefore, this anticipatory bail application is maintainable. He further submits that for a trivial dispute, the occurrence took place.

5. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of the appellants.

6. From the reading of the entire FIR, it does not appear that offence has been committed against the informant on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community and the same appears to be a mala fide prosecution.

7. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is maintainable.

8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the facts of the case, the appeal stands allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)Act, Khagaria passed in ABA No. 45 of 2024 arising out of Mahesh Khunt P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellants, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Court below in connection with Mahesh Khunt P.S. Case No. 54 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr. P.C./

Section 482(2) of the BNSS .

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top